Oregon Wildfire Map Controversy: How Misinformation Fueled Repeal of Crucial Safety Measures
In the aftermath of Oregon’s devastating 2020 wildfire season, which destroyed over 2,000 homes, state lawmakers commissioned a wildfire risk map to identify properties requiring fire-resistant construction and protective measures. The map, intended to guide the implementation of defensible space regulations – requiring homeowners to clear vegetation around their homes to prevent ember ignition – became the target of a misinformation campaign that ultimately led to its repeal. Insurance companies, also reacting to the 2020 fires, began dropping policies and raising premiums, actions misinterpreted by some as being directly linked to the state’s risk map. This misinterpretation quickly gained traction, fueled by social media and even some mainstream news outlets.
Public outcry against the map intensified, morphing from concerns about insurance to unfounded accusations of government overreach and even conspiratorial claims. Conservative talk radio host Bill Meyer propagated the narrative that the map was a ploy to “depopulate rural areas,” feeding into existing anti-government sentiments. Online platforms like Facebook became breeding grounds for misinformation, with one group, “ODF Wildfire Risk Map Support,” becoming a hub for conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated allegations about the map’s purpose and impact. Members shared unfounded fears, ranging from government surveillance of rural properties to claims that the map was part of a UN plot to force people into cities—a reference to the “Agenda 21” conspiracy theory.
The state’s failure to effectively communicate the map’s purpose and methodology further exacerbated the situation. Homeowners received letters informing them of their property’s risk classification with little prior explanation or opportunity for engagement. Chris Dunn, the Oregon State University wildfire risk scientist tasked with creating the map, had advocated for a comprehensive public outreach campaign, but his warnings went unheeded. The resulting information vacuum allowed misinformation to flourish, making constructive dialogue nearly impossible. Community meetings intended to clarify the map’s purpose were cancelled due to threats of violence, highlighting the escalating tensions surrounding the issue.
Despite official statements from insurance regulators and insurance companies themselves confirming that the state’s risk map was not used in their decision-making, the narrative persisted. Even after lawmakers passed a bill explicitly prohibiting insurers from using the map to set rates, the public remained convinced of a connection. When Zillow and other real estate sites began displaying wildfire risk ratings based on independent data, some erroneously attributed this information to the state map, further solidifying their mistrust. This illustrates the power of misinformation to take hold and resist correction, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
The state’s attempt to relaunch the map in 2023, with revised terminology and increased outreach, ultimately failed. Thousands of landowners filed appeals against their risk designations, and some counties challenged the entire map on behalf of their residents. The ongoing controversy, fueled by persistent misinformation, undermined public trust and made implementation of the map politically untenable. Even lawmakers who initially supported the map began to express doubts, overwhelmed by the volume of complaints and the difficulty of countering the prevailing narrative.
In April 2024, the Oregon Senate unanimously voted to repeal the state’s defensible space requirements and the accompanying wildfire risk map. The House followed suit, with a near-unanimous vote. Despite lacking evidence to support their claims, opponents continued to assert that the map had negatively impacted property values and insurance rates. This decision represents a significant setback for wildfire preparedness in Oregon, emphasizing the devastating consequences of misinformation and its ability to derail even well-intentioned policy initiatives. The state’s decision highlights a difficult challenge in the face of climate change: enacting policies crucial for public safety when they are perceived as threats to individual liberty or financial well-being, especially when misinformation campaigns actively exploit these anxieties.
